The Bush/Cheney 2004 Ticket Slogan:
Mars & Marriage
(Economy, what economy...............sez bush)
Mars & Marriage
(Economy, what economy...............sez bush)
Heck, marriage up until about 1563 and the Council of Trent just wasn't something the church got involved it to any huge extent. It only did that to cut down on the number of fake marriages and marriages of intimidation and threat. Before, it only concerned itself with the moral dimensions of the relation and left actual legislation and mechanics to civil authorities. That changed due for a host of reasons. Background here, middle ages segment contains the relevant history
Heck, marriage almost always was a contract, either between families or the individuals themselves and thus fell under established contract law for the most part. The romanticism of the 18th and particularly 19th century led to the current definition and workings of marriage that we're squabbling over today. If we're talking about getting marriage back to what it USED to be, then it should be nothing more than a binding contract between legally consenting parties subject to existing laws for that area.
Of course, in the end nothing said here hasn't been said before in other threads, my stuff included. (nice to see Seperate But Equal was brought up, BTW)
-- Jack
Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet.
-- Mae West
the covenant of marriage is over 4000 years old in the Judeo-Christian culture. The issuance of legal documents in regards to this are as old, at least, as the Visigoth empire which had penalties for adultery and minimum amounts for a dowry.
Who mis-informed you of this, Jack? it's simply outside the facts of the historical situation.
m-w.org isn't the only dictionary
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=marriage
1. marriage, matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock -- (the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union")
2. marriage, married couple, man and wife -- (two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love")
3. marriage, wedding, marriage ceremony -- (the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel")
4. marriage -- (a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas")
It doesn't mention "religion", but it does mention "man and wife".
*edit for spelling*
JetsFanatic
Platinum Member
Great. Another advocate of amending the basis of the nation over a matter semantics.
I like the idea of them all being called "civil unions" but you can't legally restrict usage of the word. Are you going to make it a federal crime for a gay couple call themselves "married" when they are actually "civilly unified?"
This is an exercise in futility and waste. We're going to waste precious time and money drafting an amendment that will never pass the 2/3 vote, and in the unlikely event that it does, will not change anything and cannot be truly enforced.
Oh my! Some online word database mentioned "man and wife". Stop the presses! Call Merriam-Webster (pretty much the standard dictionary.)
Also, we may need to remind some people that the lexicographer documents the usage of existing words, he does not create new words or definitions. Any lexicographer who defined the word to mean "man and wife" did so because that is how it is currently used, not because that is the only meaning the word can have.
Jzero-read-FRINDLE-and-so-should-you
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Before all this crap started, I didn't really care one way or the other. As long as I didn't see it, I didn't care. But now after reading all this stuff, I am HUGELY against it.
It probably has to do with the immaturity of the people who support it. They all act like 5 year olds.
It probably has to do with the immaturity of the people who support it. They all act like 5 year olds.
so you would agree to an amendment banning certain groups of people from getting a drivers license??
why not just ban gays from getting drivers licenses also.
do you NOT see the constitutional implications of this and how serious it is?
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
The amendment is just reinforcing the definition of Marriage.
Civil unions or whatever you want to call them aren't getting banned. Bush just wants it to be clear what Marriage is so runaway judges aren't bending definitions to fit their agenda.
I remember watching the news and someone was pointing out that Conservatives want States to hold their own power without the Federal goverment pushing them around, and they thought it was a contradiction of Bush using federal power to do so. But they missed the whole point of this issue. It's not the will of the people in the States that are supporting gay marriage in those states. This was not brought upon by elected legislators supporting this, the Judicial branch is excersizing a power they aren't supposed to have. So really the will of the people is being completely overthrown and in fact Bush is trying to correct that through legislation (which is by will of the people!).
Bush is not alone.
I have to also stress that by making this an amendment, the Houses have to agree to this and it could take years of debate. This is how our government is supposed to function and if this passes it will be the will of the majority. So anybody bashing Bush because of this needs to have a reality check.
The fact still amazes me that certian religious groups think they own the "COPYRIGHT" to the concept of marriage, as if?!
This topic is going to be one of the last great civil/human rights issues in this country. In 50 years, Our children's children will look back into American History and just shake their heads in disbelief that a president actually tried to pass a constitutional amendment to deny this god given right to certian Americans.
Unbelievable
I can't express enough the amount of pride I have about living in a state which is on the forefront of this issue and helped get the ball rolling....
-VTrider (Vermont)
This topic is going to be one of the last great civil/human rights issues in this country. In 50 years, Our children's children will look back into American History and just shake their heads in disbelief that a president actually tried to pass a constitutional amendment to deny this god given right to certian Americans.
Unbelievable
I can't express enough the amount of pride I have about living in a state which is on the forefront of this issue and helped get the ball rolling....
-VTrider (Vermont)
the homosexual community can get 'married' however they like, the movement now is to try to get society to accept homosexual sex as acceptable; they desperately want social confirmation that their decadence is acceptable and natural, because they know in their heart's what is right and what isn't.
The crux of the issue is that I don't belive creating a state stamp-of-approval for immoral behavior;
****
I'd like to see the covenant of marriage removed from the state to sanction, leaving only communal property contracts for any number of people who want to share equally all they have.
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Even your own alleged deity preaches, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Seems like you have some explaining to do to yourself before you continue spewing your biases on the rest of us. :disgust:
The crux of the matter is, their behavior is only immoral in your bigoted, narrow mind. If a gay couple is not invading your personal space or insisting that you live as they do, and they are not otherwise aggressing on others, who the fsck are you to judge them, let alone impose your values on them? You are entitled to your opinion, but under the U.S. Constitution, you are not entitled to deny others the rights you claim for yourself.
Even your own alleged deity preaches, "Judge not lest ye be judged." Seems like you have some explaining to do to yourself before you continue spewing your biases on the rest of us. :disgust:
i have to agree with harvey, i'm a devout christian and i can admit that throughout history, the GROSSEST abuses of mankind came as a direct result of a group of people trying to force their morality on another group of people, inquisition etc.
to NOT understand it that is to be ignorant of history.
It's a free country, and as an excercise of my freedom to choose, I choose to support a ban. Why I support that idea is of no concern to anyone but me. after all it is about "freedom" isn't it?
PlatinumGold -- I'm an atheist, and you're my kind of Christian. That's NOT sarcasm. Some of my friends are very religious in their respective faiths, and one thing that keeps us friends is our mutual respect of each other's right to believe what we will about the unknown.
Thanks for your intelligent post.
Thanks for your intelligent post.
If you're serious, you seem to have missed the part about your freedom to swing your fist stops somewhere short of the other guy's face. You do NOT have the right or the freedom to limit the rights and freedom of other citizens. It's about equal rights.
Originally posted by: Harvey
PlatinumGold -- I'm an atheist, and you're my kind of Christian. That's NOT sarcasm. Some of my friends are very religious in their respective faiths, and one thing that keeps us friends is our mutual respect of each other's right to believe what we will about the unknown.
Thanks for your intelligent post.If you're serious, you seem to have missed the part about your freedom to swing your fist stops somewhere short of the other guy's face. You do NOT have the right or the freedom to limit the rights and freedom of other citizens. It's about equal rights.
i think most christians have never understood what christianity was all about. that's probably why there are so many athiests. now that we live in a society that no longer attempts to force religious beliefs on the citizens, a great many people turn to atheism, me i'd rather deal with honest athiests than christians who are decieving themselves.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter